Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) processes and decisions regarding a tree on her property which she sought to remove. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. Even if there was fault, there is insufficient significant claimed injustice to Mrs X from the matters complained to justify an investigation. It would not be unreasonable for Mrs X to seek planning permission to fell the tree and appeal any Council refusal to the Planning Inspectorate.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in a property with a large tree in its grounds. She served a Section 211 notice (‘a notice’) on the Council under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the 1990 Act’), advising of her wish to remove the tree. The Council did not agree to the tree’s removal but gave Mrs X permission to prune it. Mrs X disagreed and pursued the matter. The Council asked Mrs X to submit another Section 211 notice. Officers again did not grant her permission to fell the tree then issued a temporary Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect it. Elected Members confirmed the TPO at committee in 2025, soon after Mrs X complained to us. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. gave her an unclear decision on what works she could do to the tree after the first notice;
2. advised her to submit the second notice only so it did not run out of time to issue a TPO, which she considers was a misuse of the process.
2. Mrs X says the matters have distressed her and undermined the Council's ability to act fairly, lawfully, and in accordance with statutory guidance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
5. The Planning Inspectorate acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Inspector considers appeals about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mrs X, relevant legislation, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X has said the Council was not clear in its reply to her first notice. The Council assessed the tree and determined it should not be removed. The officers’ decision advised what pruning Mrs X may do to the tree while leaving it in place. That is a response to Mrs X’s notice which the Council was entitled to give within the process. Officers explained the Council’s position regarding the tree and what works Mrs X may do. There is not enough evidence of fault in this part of the Council’s process to warrant an investigation.
8. Mrs X believes the Council only invited her to lodge a second notice so it could restart the deadline for it to serve a TPO. The Council says it requested the second notice because Mrs X had been dissatisfied with the outcome of the first. It says the second notice gave officers opportunity to consider additional concerns Mrs X had raised about the tree, review the decision, and do another assessment at a different time of year. It was not fault for officers to require her to submit another notice given Mrs X’s ongoing and additional concerns, and her disagreement with the first decision. It was then for officer to determine whether there were grounds to apply the temporary TPO, which was an action they were entitled to take to protect the tree from removal. We recognise Mrs X’s view is that officers sought the second notice to allow them to place the TPO on the tree. But there is insufficient evidence of this to justify an investigation.
9. A few weeks after Mrs X’s complaint to us, the Council officers’ decision on the TPO went before the relevant elected Members. Officers gathered comments and objections from relevant parties, including Mrs X, as part of the planning process. The Members voted to confirm the TPO. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this part of the TPO process to warrant us investigating.
10. Even if there had been Council fault here we will not investigate. We note Mrs X says her complaint to us is not about whether the tree should or should not be removed on amenity grounds. The injustice Mrs X claims is that the Council’s actions have distressed her and made her lose confidence in its processes and decisions. This injustice is not sufficiently significant to justify an investigation.
11. The core injustice to Mrs X stemming from the Council’s involvement is that she can no longer fell the tree without the significant consequences and restrictions added by the TPO. Mrs X would not have served her 1990 Act notices asking to fell the tree if this was not a core issue for her complaint about the Council.
12. The Council has explained to Mrs X that now the TPO has been confirmed, she can apply to it for planning permission to remove the tree. If the Council fully or partly refuses that permission, not giving her the outcome she wants, she would have a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. If the Council grants the permission, she will be able to fell the tree, the outcome she has sought from the 1990 Act process. We further note Mrs X considers the Council’s actions and decisions when not allowing the tree’s removal have been unfair and unlawful. A planning appeal, if required, would provide Mrs X with an independent ruling by the Planning Inspectorate on the Council’s actions here. It would not be unreasonable for Mrs X to take this route to pursue these outcomes.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant claimed injustice to her from the matters complained to justify an investigation; and
• it would not be unreasonable for her to seek to change the core outcome of the Council’s process and decisions by applying for planning permission to fell the tree, then appealing any refusal decision to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman